Auditory Rhythm Encoding during the Last Trimester of Human Gestation: From Tracking the Basic Beat to Tracking Hierarchical Nested Temporal Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rhythm perception and synchronization to periodicity hold fundamental neurodevelopmental importance for language acquisition, musical behavior, and social communication. Rhythm is omnipresent in the fetal auditory world and newborns demonstrate sensitivity to auditory rhythmic cues. During the last trimester of gestation, the brain begins to respond to auditory stimulation and to code the auditory environment. When and how during this period do the neural capacities for rhythm processing develop? We conducted a cross-sectional study in 46 neonates (24 male) born between 27 and 35 weeks gestational age (wGA), measuring their neural responses to auditory rhythms with high-density electroencephalography during sleep. We developed measures to evaluate neural synchronization to nested rhythmic periodicities, including the fast isochronous beat and slower metrical (beat grouping) structures. We show that neural synchronization to beat and meter becomes stronger with increasing GA, converging on small phase differences between stimulus and neural responses near term, similar to those observed in adults. Dividing the cohort into subpopulations born before and after 33 wGA revealed that both younger and older groups showed neural synchronization to the fast periodicity related to the isochronous beat, whereas only the older group showed significant neural synchronization to the slower meter frequencies related to beat groupings, suggesting that encoding of nested periodicities arrives during late gestation. Together, our results shed light on the rapid evolution of neural coding of external hierarchical auditory rhythms during the third trimester of gestation, starting from the age when the thalamocortical axons establish the first synapses with the cortical plate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".